
Why Gen Z employees want to talk politics at work—and how leaders can handle it with grace
But this isn't just about politics—it's about identity, inclusion, and the evolving role of work in people's lives. For many in Gen Z, work isn't just about a paycheck; it's a platform. It's where they spend the majority of their waking hours. They want to be seen, heard, and valued—not just for their productivity, but for their principles.
I asked my 29-year-old son, Ryan, and a few of his friends why political conversations feel so natural at work. Here's what I heard:
They've grown up in a world where expressing opinions online is second nature.
They're passionate about climate change, racial justice, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and economic fairness.
They are deeply concerned about increasing war and violence (including political violence).
They feel disappointed by political leaders on both sides—and want meaningful dialogue.
They believe that silence can be dangerous, and dialogue is the way forward.
And most critically, they're anxious about their future and want to feel empowered in it.
Why political talk feels so risky—and so necessary
The workplace reality, of course, is more complicated. In MIT Sloan Management Review, Michael Platt and Morela Hernandez explain that political discussions become polarizing for three key reasons:
Politics feel moral, not just rational. Political views are often experienced as moral truths, processed through emotion rather than logic.
Political beliefs become identity markers. Once moralized, political stances become deeply tied to one's sense of self-worth and moral character.
People form 'moral tribes' at work. Individuals tend to seek validation by clustering with like-minded colleagues—creating ideological silos that fuel tension and division.
These dynamics contribute to an increasingly hostile work environment. What should be a well-tuned chorus has descended into a discordant melee, often incivil or toxic. Besides making the workday an unpleasant source of stress and even violence, this fracturing can negatively impact a firm's productivity and culture.
For example, a SHRM survey reports that it takes up to 30 minutes for an employee to resume productive activity following a workplace conflict. Now consider that reported 'uncivil acts' in U.S. workplaces increased to more than 200 million per day following a presidential debate in 2024, per SHRM, and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear.
Incivility also has a negative effect on corporate culture and morale. If ignored or handled clumsily, internal conflict can erode a company's identity—and even damage its reputation—from within.
These dangers can't be laid at the feet of Gen Z alone: it's a problem decades in the making. Today, nearly every human action appears to have been politicized, and we all have a responsibility to address this issue.
Many wear their political sympathies on their sleeves, supporting certain politicians and policies in an attempt to capture market share among their target demographic. Atop that, the outcome of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that endowed businesses with the rights of people, now enables campaign contributions to be considered a protected form of speech. Knowing all this, it would be strange if the workplace—where people spend most of their time—wasn't also drawn into the day's political conflicts and culture wars.
Not surprisingly, a recent survey by Indeed found that 60%of workers overall would favor working for companies with politically sympathetic leadership. Already, 42% of respondents were working for companies aligned with a single party. These numbers may be more stark among recent college graduates, but it's clear that the blurred role of politics in the office is already well-established.
A teachable moment for leadership
Many leaders worry that political conversations will fracture teams or harm productivity. And yes, boundaries matter. But what if this moment isn't just a challenge, but a profound opportunity?
The truth is that empathy is not a soft virtue—it's a strategic one. Empathy, when practiced with consistency and courage, builds trust. And trust is the foundation of any thriving workplace.
This is our chance to cultivate the next generation of leaders. Those who will:
Understand that disagreement is not a threat to unity, but a path toward it.
Learn to listen across ideological and experiential divides.
Develop the skills to speak with curiosity, clarity, and respect.
Embrace dialogue as a tool for problem-solving—not conflict.
This is how we grow, not just as professionals, but as citizens.
And we don't have to do it alone. Grassroots organizations like Braver Angels, Listen First Project, US United, Stand Together, More in Common, Convergence, Living Room Conversations, and Starts With Us offer free, practical tools for fostering civil discourse.
As efforts to create multicultural workplaces that leverage rather than suppress diversity have demonstrated, proactive leadership and pragmatic processes are an essential combination.
How leaders can respond to politics in the workplace—with grace
This isn't about encouraging political debate, it's about not silencing it out of fear. Leaders don't have to take sides. In fact, they should avoid taking sides. But they do have an obligation to set the tone. Here's how:
Affirm respect as a ground rule. Accept that employees will have differences, but make it clear that political discussions must remain respectful. No personal attacks. No shaming. No exclusion.
Offer dialogue training. Provide employees with tools and workshops that teach active listening, civil disagreement, and conflict navigation.
Model thoughtful engagement. Leaders don't need to be apolitical—but they should be intentional. Share your views with humility, and create space for others to do the same.
Create safe spaces—not echo chambers. Welcome diverse viewpoints across the spectrum. Curiosity is contagious.
Remember the bigger picture. Helping employees engage across differences doesn't just protect morale—it strengthens democracy.
We may live in divided times. But our workplaces don't have to mirror that division. Instead, they can model something better. Political conversations, when approached with care, can be the crucible in which better citizens—and better leaders—are forged.
Let's not waste this moment. Let's teach the next generation not just how to work—but how to listen, engage, and lead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fancy Farm returns to west Kentucky with barbecue, political zingers. See updates
Grab some pork and popcorn. Kentucky's annual Fancy Farm Picnic is back, with several high-profile Senate candidates ready to lob shots at their competitors before a rowdy crowd. The event has become known for its fiery political speeches, laced with zingers. And while event organizers typically limit speakers to those holding state office or running in a general election, they've extended invitations to primary candidates running in 2026. That includes Andy Barr, Daniel Cameron and Nate Morris, who've all accepted slots as candidates campaigning to take U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat. Thousands of pounds of barbecue will also be served through the hot summer day. And The Courier Journal will be there to see it all. Here's are the highlights. Stay in the know: Sign up for our On Kentucky Politics newsletter Prominent Democrats join dinner, skip Fancy Farm Picnic Democrats joined the 28th annual Mike Miller Memorial Bean Dinner on Aug. 1 in Marshall County ahead of 145th Fancy Farm Picnic. The event, held at the Kentucky Dam Village Convention Center, featured prominent speakers including Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman and Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Colmon Elridge. During her speech, Coleman touted how she and the Beshear administration broke "historic tourism records in the last three years" and have created new jobs for Kentuckians. 'We created 65,000 new jobs and $35 million worth of private sector investments,' Coleman said. 'We secured raises for law enforcement, for state employees, for social workers, but ironically, the one group of people that the Republicans in the General Assembly don't think deserve a raise is our educators.' Coleman previously confirmed she would not participate in the political speaking portion of the picnic, saying she believes that time should be reserved for candidates on the ballot. She touched on her absence during her speech, saying she will not be at the event 'partly because there are so many obvious jokes, but not much worth laughing about at this moment.' '… Although I do hear of some races, like in 2027, that might bring me back to the Fancy Farm stage,' Coleman said, potentially alluding to the upcoming gubernatorial election. John 'Drew' Williams, who announced he plans to run against Republican U.S. Rep. James Comer in 2026, will be the lone Democrat speaking at Fancy Farm. When asked how it feels to be the only Democrat on stage, Williams told The Courier Journal, 'I don't mind it at all.' 'It's become a hate fest in a lot of ways, the picnic,' Williams said. 'We should treat it like a church picnic. Quips are fine. Jokes are fine. But we're getting really hateful in the way we talk about each other.' Williams added he feels 'pretty confident' about his first time speaking at Fancy Farm and is 'ready to be in front of (his) community." 'Even if there are hecklers there, all they're doing is getting me prepared to go up there and get heckled and yelled at in Congress,' Williams said. Who's speaking at Fancy Farm 2025? The speaking order for the event, with allotted times, is as follows: Fancy Farm Political Chairman Steven Elder, welcome Bishop William Medley, invocation Campbellsville University President Joseph Hopkins, national anthem Emily and Austin Lamb, "My Old Kentucky Home" Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President Ashli Watts, emcee, 5 minutes State Rep. Kim Holloway (R), 4 minutes State Sen. Jason Howell (R), 4 minutes U.S. Rep. James Comer (R), 6 minutes Congressional candidate John "Drew Williams (D), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Cameron (R), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Andy Barr (R), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Nate Morris (R), 6 minutes Attorney General Russell Coleman (R), 5 minutes Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell (R), 5 minutes State Treasurer Mark Metcalf (R), 5 minutes U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell is listed as pending on the most recent speaker list. How to watch political speeches at Fancy Farm Political speaking will begin at 3 p.m. ET/2 p.m. CT. KET will begin live coverage of the event at 2:30 p.m. ET/1:30 p.m. CT. Host Renee Shaw and political commentators Trey Grayson and Bob Babbage will provide pre-event analysis. Watch the coverage at Fancy Farm 2025 schedule Barbecue by the pound goes on sale bright and early at 8 a.m. But the picnic's official kickoff doesn't start until a little later. Here's the schedule for the day. 10 a.m. CT: Official picnic start time 10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.: Music by Harold Daniels 11 a.m. - 7 p.m.: Meals served in parish hall 1:30 p.m.: Pioneer Award presentation at political stand 2 p.m.: Political speaking 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.: Music by Louisville Orchestra 7 - 10 p.m.: Music by Seeing Red band 10 p.m.: Raffle drawing This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Fancy Farm picnic 2025: Updates from Kentucky's annual political event Solve the daily Crossword


CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.


Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
DOJ cracking down on noncitizen voters
UC Berkeley Law professor John Yoo joins 'Fox News Live' to discuss the Justice Department's investigation into voter rolls as it seeks to identify noncitizen voters.